I'm not too sure about the constant going up, just like the desktop space I'd expect a plateau effect. Video is one of the few things that really pushes phones / tablets and that is being pushed to dedicated chips or the graphics cards is offloading allot of the processing that was traditionally done on the CPU.
The "proof" I have of this effect is the NVidia Tegra line, the Tegra 2 is the most valued of the line at the moment. Tegra 3 (despite the 5th companion core which I think is extremly useful in the mobile space) hasn't really caught on thus far because IMHO the average person doesn't want / need that kind of horsepower in a mobile device. Given the types of games the Tegras are capable of running I'd be tempted to say it won't be long till mobile devices catch up to console level graphics quality (for some platforms they already have).
Also I think your statement "while i'm sure there are a few that care about battery life above all frankly that isn't the majority" is not true, the push is towards the "always-connected" lifestyle hence the need for high speed links to your phone to fetch your data from the cloud. That doesn't exactly work that well when your device is dead.
I'm curious, so lets say you switch lanes and now the person jumps across to the lane you are now in, can you still be charged for manslaughter? Simple reason I can think is if someone is trying to kill themselves and the drop is not deemed high enough the "victim" in this case could conclude that the extra impact with a moving vehicle would be necessary and that your car fit the bill.
P.S. Lets keep this civil, if the term "slam on brakes" was used instead of "lock up my brakes" would that prevent such an outburst from yourself about incompetent driving?
You don't get doctors asking on the internet how to treat patients.
Maybe because they don't call it "Ask Slashdot" doesn't mean they don't have / use their own forums to ask other doctors. That's what consultations, looking up journals (which may be on the internet) for cases with similar circumstances, 2nd opinions, sending you to a specialist in the affected area, etc. are for. One could argue that their system is potentially worse due to the fact that you often only get one (or possibly a few) opinions (although the opinions should be more reliable / trustworthy, we all know that is not always the case).
The medical field is a wee bit older than IT so they already grappled with and accepted that no single human can know everything on a particular subject and so have formalized the support systems needed to maintain the system as a whole. This isn't an attack on your post, I just wanted to point out that they do have a similar setup which I believe is pretty much consistent across every industry. The issue with "Ask Slashdot" is you aren't asking "experts" (given some of the questions I've seen, I am having a hard time believing experts in that field even exist).
The rest of the world primarily uses GSM, which only has 4 major bands 850/900/1800/1900.
Not that hard to choose matching bands once a decent number of providers exist. Also with such regulations triple or quad band phones will become popular (dual or single band seem quite rare). In my little Caribbean island where we have only 2 providers we don't use 1900 but the other 3 are in use (higher frequencies for data transfer, lower frequencies for building penetrating cell coverage).
1/2 a year warning that the service will stop receiving new data (announcement was sent out June 24th 2011) and another year to transition to another platform (January 1 2013). How is that no warning?
Unlike most other cloud providers they are actually providing a (very easy) transition route, heck they are even giving direction on how to transition to one of their competitors.
What I laugh about these comments is you seem to forget what Google said about chrome, "We want to create a better internet, if we are running is that's nice, if not that's cool too". In what way is Google suited to run such a service? Geeks have to have some of the worst health practices I can think of. What I find ironic is all the criticism that is being thrown at Google while none is thrown at the health care providers, why did it take someone like Google to create such a service when your health care provider can provide all of what Google provided and more. What google did was show what can be done, in this case they decided they are not the best group to run such an operation, they hire doctorates but I'm pretty sure very few MDs.
And here's another consideration for the conspiracy theorist, there are already lots of people saying Google knows too much about them. Maybe the lawsuits over Google health isn't one they want to start, maybe google health isn't a victim of some accountants trying to save a few bucks so much as the threat of aggressive lawyers after allot of bucks.
I think you need to speak to someone that knows the 80/20 rule. 80% of the time spent on a program will be on maintenance. Sad to say but most users aren't going to care if their "solution" doesn't survive till their next paycheck, for them it show they have initiative and they can move onto a management position.
I'd also like to contest your claim that it is far more frustrating from the business side, I've had one of these "solutions" fail spectacularly and it took the better part of a week to rebuild the companies (notice not the user's) data. When you consider that in pretty much every company the users outnumber IT (normally by orders of magnitude) the likelihood that this week you get to fix one of these "solutions" becomes quite high. From the business side you can always complain to your manager and get a problem / issue escalated (assuming this is a real issue, and your boss doesn't laugh you out of the room) which is more than I can say for IT.
I've had the pleasure of telling a fellow employee to go f*** themselves (not in those terms, unfortunately) after such an incident.
Funny thing is we had just started providing RAID backed storage to certain employees for backing up important files, said employee chose not to. Got pulled up for it but it was more for the "not being helpful" aspect which didn't bother me one bit.
In all three of your examples I have the same question, What happens to your data? None of your scenarios seem to take that into account.
Cloud is the only answer that can make decent sense except if everything is in the cloud (and I assume you do everything via browser so nothing is stored locally, yes I have seen that you have a complex software stack installed so this isn't the case, playing devil's advocate here) you don't need anything more than a dumb terminal
Maybe not patent trolls to the letter but they are definitely not holding to the spirit of what a patent is for, they sat on it for a while and waited for someone to come around with a service.
Take the following sentence with a grain of salt, but if location services via google maps and music via itunes have existed for so long why target Android? I haven't actually seen the list of patents in question and maybe Android is doing something very unique (something I highly doubt). However I'm very willing to accept the articles conclusion of they are trying to monetize their patent portfolio before it expires and right now google seems to be easy pickings.
The article's other suggestion that they don't want to piss off the handset makers themselves would be the only reasonable reason I can see apple hasn't been targeted yet. On the location side I can see google being the leader but I can't really say I know of anything google music does that iTunes and the music player on the iPhone / Touch doesn't.
Not sure I completely agree with that statement, first point would be that forcing the network to know about state when it was designed to be stateless is as we all know asking for trouble.
Forcing the protocols to go through a complete connection cycle to activate a concurrent transfer is not exactly great from an efficiency standpoint. Hypothetically speaking (I know most FTP servers don't work this way), using one control connection I could transfer multiple files concurrently down to my machine without going through the full authentication cycle each time (e.g. as with SFTP). Timing attacks and man-in-the-middle would rip such an argument apart so maybe in this circumstance it can be seen as an benefit but if those problems could be resolved I believe there could be some benefit. Also if memory serves SSH in general has gotten some improvements to mitigate the effects of the repeated authentication.
Where I also see an issue is NAT forced the pull model, there is no easy way for a server which just got new mail for you to notify you about it without you constantly asking or keeping a constant connection to the server open. The former is needed by mail or dynamic web sites (think ajax) and has the downside of potentially needing lots of storage to buffer updates for the clients whereas the latter is used by games and chat and suffers from forcing the servers to maintain connections to lots of clients with the possibility of infrequent updates (obviously more an issue with chat-type-apps vs games where there is a constant stream of updates). Ironically NAT itself (or rather aggressive NAT settings) is the biggest threat to maintaining a constant connection to a server (assuming the server isn't heavily loaded).
Finally any type of "true" p2p which does not rely on "super nodes" to keep traffic flowing to peers behind NAT (which are the vast majority) can never exist as long as NAT does. You can see this as either a benefit or loss depending on your views of P2P in general. There isn't much to say on this topic as regardless of NATs existence and using in-band signaling, P2P networks not only survive but flourish.
PAT is a subclass of NAT, hence the terms can (and often are) used interchangeably.
Given that he specified "Many-to-one NAT" which indicates the most common type which you correctly identified as PAT you aren't adding anything to his statement or even correcting it.
If everyone is hiding behind NAT, how are you supposed to initiate a connection? At the very least SIP provides a way for the callers to route their way through a gateway if both are behind NAT.
If your solution was actually possible then why does every type of P2P network require something resembling a super node to allow communication between nodes hiding behind NAT? Last I checked Bittorrent, eMule and Gnutella all require such a node to exist on the network to facilitate communication.
SIP is no more complex than any of those protocols, if anything makes it more complex it is that the P2P protocols autodetect allot of their configuration (skype is built on what they call a "type 2" P2P network hence it benefits from some of the autoconfig), and that in most P2P networks you really don't care who you connect to (under normal circumstances its a pool of clients anyway so anyone in the pool will do) so authentication requirements can be relaxed.
You forget most phones are subsidized, the money is from the contracts / users.
The telco still holds the original owner with the contract and can potentially get more money from the thief (or the eventual buyer of the phone). So yes there is a disincentive to brick the phone.
Of course I am going with the assumption that the eventual buyer is someone who otherwise would not buy the phone at its normal price. The telco has already lost money on the original phone sale (that they hope to make back on the original contract), if they can get more bang for their buck (more use out of the phone) why not?
Well, in the story on Knights trail, Intel said a select few companies got some of the existing prototypes. Guess we know the name of one of those companies.
Would it be possible to have the chip start up layer by layer? I'm using a rack of equipment as my real world example, it effectively reduces the maximum amount of current needed at any point in time. Of course I'm making the assumption that the startup current exceeds the maximum running current under full load.
Bah, when is the 2nd set coming around? Order more!!!:P
Right now I want about 5: - Extra PC (or 2) in the house if someone visits / home entertainment replacement (stream from NAS). I already saw the video of VLC running on one of these guys. Still undecided as to whether to chop open my tv and embed it or mount outside. - New brain for my quad copter, the new brain was going to be a android phone in a Otterbox case but I'll be much less freaked out if it crashes with a rasberry pi than a $200-$300 phone. - Possible front-end replacement for my Reprap Mendel (all I'll need to provide is a screen, keyboard & mouse. No full PC required). I'm guessing the guys at rep-rap are salivating over this guy. For those that want a 3D printer to operate without a external PC this would be heaven. - A few home automation projects I have. - One for development / playing around with.
As a side note, you may have some competition from the Arduino community (or an opportunity for collaboration), from what last I head they were coming out with an ARM version to address the limitations of the ATMega family of chips (Most notably the 8k of RAM). The difference I can see between the two projects comes from I/O, Arduino would be more low level (SPI, I2C, etc) where the Raspberry would focus on USB and consumer peripherals (Keyboard, mouse, webcam, big screen, flash drives, etc).
No, I think I understand the purpose of the UN quite well, what I also understand is that it means "United Nations" not "United State's Nations". For the US to actually have a law that removes any aid to the rest of the world when a particular entity is recognized seems downright childish, what also seems to be implied in this law is the assumption that the US has such a powerful position in these bodies that this response will affect the foreign policy of other sovereign nations in the future. If the US has a problem with Palestine then they are welcome to whatever view they hold, that should have no bearing on what the rest of the world thinks.
As for the knee jerk condemnation of corporations, care to point out the difference between a corporation and say a drug syndicate? The only difference I see is that one for the most part attempts to follow the law (or probably more correctly make it look that way) while the other couldn't care less. I have pretty reasonable guarantees neither are looking out for my best interests (or my interests at all). At least in the latter case I have some course of action if I am wronged, in the former I get to know they will still get their bonuses and aren't going to care one bit.
Great idea! Let's hand over control of the UN to a collection of communists, monarchies, corrupt governments, and Islamic theocracies, which together make up the majority of UN members. What could possibly go wrong!
Its currently in the hands of the US primarily and by extension in the hands of a bunch of corporations... Is it bad that you list above looks appealing?
Would you like the UN meddling in US internal affairs?
And change the entities slightly:
Would you like the US dictating the internal affairs of the rest of the world and how they think?
If the US has taken a side in this you are free to do as you please, I fail to understand what that has to do with the rest of the world. From what the original article says 80 million was slated to be given to UNESCO by the US, apparently that makes up 23% of UNESCO's budget according to http://wallwritings.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/palestine-enters-unesco-in-107-to-14-vote/. This same article goes on to point out something I would consider quite scary to most Americans "Among positive votes for the Palestine entry into UNESCO were Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia, a trio of financial centers for which an annual gift of $80 million will pose no problem.". i.e. UNESCO probably isn't going to care one bit.
This seriously sounds like a bunch of kids got their feelings hurt and decided to take their ball and go home, the rest of the kids in the play ground probably won't care or are happy that they left. This view is compounded if you take a look at the vote, especially when you think of the 14 as the bullies which seem to have stopped 52 states from voting out of fear of reprisal which the US has shown they have no issues with going through with.
Once kidnapped by one of these cartels I thought the idea was you might as well be dead.
This might be one of the few things that can keep him alive. I like the irony of getting the other cartels to clean up this one, however I am pretty sure none of the cartels involved survived this long by being stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not too sure about the constant going up, just like the desktop space I'd expect a plateau effect. Video is one of the few things that really pushes phones / tablets and that is being pushed to dedicated chips or the graphics cards is offloading allot of the processing that was traditionally done on the CPU.
The "proof" I have of this effect is the NVidia Tegra line, the Tegra 2 is the most valued of the line at the moment. Tegra 3 (despite the 5th companion core which I think is extremly useful in the mobile space) hasn't really caught on thus far because IMHO the average person doesn't want / need that kind of horsepower in a mobile device. Given the types of games the Tegras are capable of running I'd be tempted to say it won't be long till mobile devices catch up to console level graphics quality (for some platforms they already have).
Also I think your statement "while i'm sure there are a few that care about battery life above all frankly that isn't the majority" is not true, the push is towards the "always-connected" lifestyle hence the need for high speed links to your phone to fetch your data from the cloud. That doesn't exactly work that well when your device is dead.
I'm curious, so lets say you switch lanes and now the person jumps across to the lane you are now in, can you still be charged for manslaughter? Simple reason I can think is if someone is trying to kill themselves and the drop is not deemed high enough the "victim" in this case could conclude that the extra impact with a moving vehicle would be necessary and that your car fit the bill.
P.S. Lets keep this civil, if the term "slam on brakes" was used instead of "lock up my brakes" would that prevent such an outburst from yourself about incompetent driving?
You don't get doctors asking on the internet how to treat patients.
Maybe because they don't call it "Ask Slashdot" doesn't mean they don't have / use their own forums to ask other doctors. That's what consultations, looking up journals (which may be on the internet) for cases with similar circumstances, 2nd opinions, sending you to a specialist in the affected area, etc. are for. One could argue that their system is potentially worse due to the fact that you often only get one (or possibly a few) opinions (although the opinions should be more reliable / trustworthy, we all know that is not always the case).
The medical field is a wee bit older than IT so they already grappled with and accepted that no single human can know everything on a particular subject and so have formalized the support systems needed to maintain the system as a whole. This isn't an attack on your post, I just wanted to point out that they do have a similar setup which I believe is pretty much consistent across every industry. The issue with "Ask Slashdot" is you aren't asking "experts" (given some of the questions I've seen, I am having a hard time believing experts in that field even exist).
The rest of the world primarily uses GSM, which only has 4 major bands 850/900/1800/1900.
Not that hard to choose matching bands once a decent number of providers exist. Also with such regulations triple or quad band phones will become popular (dual or single band seem quite rare). In my little Caribbean island where we have only 2 providers we don't use 1900 but the other 3 are in use (higher frequencies for data transfer, lower frequencies for building penetrating cell coverage).
1/2 a year warning that the service will stop receiving new data (announcement was sent out June 24th 2011) and another year to transition to another platform (January 1 2013). How is that no warning?
Unlike most other cloud providers they are actually providing a (very easy) transition route, heck they are even giving direction on how to transition to one of their competitors.
What I laugh about these comments is you seem to forget what Google said about chrome, "We want to create a better internet, if we are running is that's nice, if not that's cool too". In what way is Google suited to run such a service? Geeks have to have some of the worst health practices I can think of. What I find ironic is all the criticism that is being thrown at Google while none is thrown at the health care providers, why did it take someone like Google to create such a service when your health care provider can provide all of what Google provided and more. What google did was show what can be done, in this case they decided they are not the best group to run such an operation, they hire doctorates but I'm pretty sure very few MDs.
And here's another consideration for the conspiracy theorist, there are already lots of people saying Google knows too much about them. Maybe the lawsuits over Google health isn't one they want to start, maybe google health isn't a victim of some accountants trying to save a few bucks so much as the threat of aggressive lawyers after allot of bucks.
I think you need to speak to someone that knows the 80/20 rule. 80% of the time spent on a program will be on maintenance. Sad to say but most users aren't going to care if their "solution" doesn't survive till their next paycheck, for them it show they have initiative and they can move onto a management position.
I'd also like to contest your claim that it is far more frustrating from the business side, I've had one of these "solutions" fail spectacularly and it took the better part of a week to rebuild the companies (notice not the user's) data. When you consider that in pretty much every company the users outnumber IT (normally by orders of magnitude) the likelihood that this week you get to fix one of these "solutions" becomes quite high. From the business side you can always complain to your manager and get a problem / issue escalated (assuming this is a real issue, and your boss doesn't laugh you out of the room) which is more than I can say for IT.
I've had the pleasure of telling a fellow employee to go f*** themselves (not in those terms, unfortunately) after such an incident.
Funny thing is we had just started providing RAID backed storage to certain employees for backing up important files, said employee chose not to. Got pulled up for it but it was more for the "not being helpful" aspect which didn't bother me one bit.
In all three of your examples I have the same question, What happens to your data? None of your scenarios seem to take that into account.
Cloud is the only answer that can make decent sense except if everything is in the cloud (and I assume you do everything via browser so nothing is stored locally, yes I have seen that you have a complex software stack installed so this isn't the case, playing devil's advocate here) you don't need anything more than a dumb terminal
Pretty safe to say he would also be gone if there was a breach through one of your phones and valuable company data got into the wrong hands.
Maybe not patent trolls to the letter but they are definitely not holding to the spirit of what a patent is for, they sat on it for a while and waited for someone to come around with a service.
Take the following sentence with a grain of salt, but if location services via google maps and music via itunes have existed for so long why target Android? I haven't actually seen the list of patents in question and maybe Android is doing something very unique (something I highly doubt). However I'm very willing to accept the articles conclusion of they are trying to monetize their patent portfolio before it expires and right now google seems to be easy pickings.
The article's other suggestion that they don't want to piss off the handset makers themselves would be the only reasonable reason I can see apple hasn't been targeted yet. On the location side I can see google being the leader but I can't really say I know of anything google music does that iTunes and the music player on the iPhone / Touch doesn't.
Not sure I completely agree with that statement, first point would be that forcing the network to know about state when it was designed to be stateless is as we all know asking for trouble.
Forcing the protocols to go through a complete connection cycle to activate a concurrent transfer is not exactly great from an efficiency standpoint. Hypothetically speaking (I know most FTP servers don't work this way), using one control connection I could transfer multiple files concurrently down to my machine without going through the full authentication cycle each time (e.g. as with SFTP). Timing attacks and man-in-the-middle would rip such an argument apart so maybe in this circumstance it can be seen as an benefit but if those problems could be resolved I believe there could be some benefit. Also if memory serves SSH in general has gotten some improvements to mitigate the effects of the repeated authentication.
Where I also see an issue is NAT forced the pull model, there is no easy way for a server which just got new mail for you to notify you about it without you constantly asking or keeping a constant connection to the server open. The former is needed by mail or dynamic web sites (think ajax) and has the downside of potentially needing lots of storage to buffer updates for the clients whereas the latter is used by games and chat and suffers from forcing the servers to maintain connections to lots of clients with the possibility of infrequent updates (obviously more an issue with chat-type-apps vs games where there is a constant stream of updates). Ironically NAT itself (or rather aggressive NAT settings) is the biggest threat to maintaining a constant connection to a server (assuming the server isn't heavily loaded).
Finally any type of "true" p2p which does not rely on "super nodes" to keep traffic flowing to peers behind NAT (which are the vast majority) can never exist as long as NAT does. You can see this as either a benefit or loss depending on your views of P2P in general. There isn't much to say on this topic as regardless of NATs existence and using in-band signaling, P2P networks not only survive but flourish.
PAT is a subclass of NAT, hence the terms can (and often are) used interchangeably.
Given that he specified "Many-to-one NAT" which indicates the most common type which you correctly identified as PAT you aren't adding anything to his statement or even correcting it.
If everyone is hiding behind NAT, how are you supposed to initiate a connection? At the very least SIP provides a way for the callers to route their way through a gateway if both are behind NAT.
If your solution was actually possible then why does every type of P2P network require something resembling a super node to allow communication between nodes hiding behind NAT? Last I checked Bittorrent, eMule and Gnutella all require such a node to exist on the network to facilitate communication.
SIP is no more complex than any of those protocols, if anything makes it more complex it is that the P2P protocols autodetect allot of their configuration (skype is built on what they call a "type 2" P2P network hence it benefits from some of the autoconfig), and that in most P2P networks you really don't care who you connect to (under normal circumstances its a pool of clients anyway so anyone in the pool will do) so authentication requirements can be relaxed.
You forget most phones are subsidized, the money is from the contracts / users.
The telco still holds the original owner with the contract and can potentially get more money from the thief (or the eventual buyer of the phone). So yes there is a disincentive to brick the phone.
Of course I am going with the assumption that the eventual buyer is someone who otherwise would not buy the phone at its normal price. The telco has already lost money on the original phone sale (that they hope to make back on the original contract), if they can get more bang for their buck (more use out of the phone) why not?
If it is a decent installation, could liquid cooling be an answer?
From the looks / sounds of it we are looking at around a full rack of equipment.
Well, in the story on Knights trail, Intel said a select few companies got some of the existing prototypes. Guess we know the name of one of those companies.
Just to clarify, the 50-core beast hasn't been released as yet.
They gave a demo of what is most likely a prototype chip.
Would it be possible to have the chip start up layer by layer? I'm using a rack of equipment as my real world example, it effectively reduces the maximum amount of current needed at any point in time. Of course I'm making the assumption that the startup current exceeds the maximum running current under full load.
Bah, when is the 2nd set coming around? Order more!!! :P
Right now I want about 5:
- Extra PC (or 2) in the house if someone visits / home entertainment replacement (stream from NAS). I already saw the video of VLC running on one of these guys. Still undecided as to whether to chop open my tv and embed it or mount outside.
- New brain for my quad copter, the new brain was going to be a android phone in a Otterbox case but I'll be much less freaked out if it crashes with a rasberry pi than a $200-$300 phone.
- Possible front-end replacement for my Reprap Mendel (all I'll need to provide is a screen, keyboard & mouse. No full PC required). I'm guessing the guys at rep-rap are salivating over this guy. For those that want a 3D printer to operate without a external PC this would be heaven.
- A few home automation projects I have.
- One for development / playing around with.
As a side note, you may have some competition from the Arduino community (or an opportunity for collaboration), from what last I head they were coming out with an ARM version to address the limitations of the ATMega family of chips (Most notably the 8k of RAM). The difference I can see between the two projects comes from I/O, Arduino would be more low level (SPI, I2C, etc) where the Raspberry would focus on USB and consumer peripherals (Keyboard, mouse, webcam, big screen, flash drives, etc).
No, I think I understand the purpose of the UN quite well, what I also understand is that it means "United Nations" not "United State's Nations". For the US to actually have a law that removes any aid to the rest of the world when a particular entity is recognized seems downright childish, what also seems to be implied in this law is the assumption that the US has such a powerful position in these bodies that this response will affect the foreign policy of other sovereign nations in the future. If the US has a problem with Palestine then they are welcome to whatever view they hold, that should have no bearing on what the rest of the world thinks.
As for the knee jerk condemnation of corporations, care to point out the difference between a corporation and say a drug syndicate? The only difference I see is that one for the most part attempts to follow the law (or probably more correctly make it look that way) while the other couldn't care less. I have pretty reasonable guarantees neither are looking out for my best interests (or my interests at all). At least in the latter case I have some course of action if I am wronged, in the former I get to know they will still get their bonuses and aren't going to care one bit.
bah, was supposed to read "Is it bad that the list above looks appealing?"
Great idea! Let's hand over control of the UN to a collection of communists, monarchies, corrupt governments, and Islamic theocracies, which together make up the majority of UN members. What could possibly go wrong!
Its currently in the hands of the US primarily and by extension in the hands of a bunch of corporations... Is it bad that you list above looks appealing?
Lets use your own argument in a different way:
Would you like the UN meddling in US internal affairs?
And change the entities slightly:
Would you like the US dictating the internal affairs of the rest of the world and how they think?
If the US has taken a side in this you are free to do as you please, I fail to understand what that has to do with the rest of the world. From what the original article says 80 million was slated to be given to UNESCO by the US, apparently that makes up 23% of UNESCO's budget according to http://wallwritings.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/palestine-enters-unesco-in-107-to-14-vote/. This same article goes on to point out something I would consider quite scary to most Americans "Among positive votes for the Palestine entry into UNESCO were Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia, a trio of financial centers for which an annual gift of $80 million will pose no problem.". i.e. UNESCO probably isn't going to care one bit.
This seriously sounds like a bunch of kids got their feelings hurt and decided to take their ball and go home, the rest of the kids in the play ground probably won't care or are happy that they left. This view is compounded if you take a look at the vote, especially when you think of the 14 as the bullies which seem to have stopped 52 states from voting out of fear of reprisal which the US has shown they have no issues with going through with.
Once kidnapped by one of these cartels I thought the idea was you might as well be dead.
This might be one of the few things that can keep him alive. I like the irony of getting the other cartels to clean up this one, however I am pretty sure none of the cartels involved survived this long by being stupid.
Hmm, indeed. I was mistaking HDMI with DVI which seems to carry the analog signal separately (hence can support passive connectors).